How is the Sigma 10-20mm?

Started 11 months ago | Discussions
dan_darkroom Regular Member • Posts: 406
How is the Sigma 10-20mm?

I just see cheap Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 DC HSM on the market. Is it worthwhile to get it?

Only lens I have now is the 17-70mm, would love to get the 8-16mm though, maybe the 10-20mm is a good compromise?

Any comments?

 dan_darkroom's gear list:dan_darkroom's gear list
Nikon Coolpix P900 Sony a7R II Sigma sd Quattro Venus Laowa 60mm F2.8 Macro Venus Laowa 15mm F4 Macro +2 more
Rue64285 Regular Member • Posts: 124
Re: How is the Sigma 10-20mm?
1

Dan,

The 10-20 f3.5 is a very good lens which I own since a couple of years. It is comparatively cheap and does a great job with both, the SD1 Merrill and the SD Quattro.

Compared to the Art series of lenses it is small and lightweight as well as with f3.5 comparatively fast. I did not see anything what is against that lens.

Enjoy and have fun.

-- hide signature --

Rue H. | much more enthusiasm than talent ...
_______________

 Rue64285's gear list:Rue64285's gear list
Sigma sd Quattro Sigma SD1 Merrill Sony a6300 +1 more
absquatulate Forum Pro • Posts: 11,129
Re: How is the Sigma 10-20mm?
1

Rue64285 wrote:

Dan,

The 10-20 f3.5 is a very good lens which I own since a couple of years. It is comparatively cheap and does a great job with both, the SD1 Merrill and the SD Quattro.

Compared to the Art series of lenses it is small and lightweight as well as with f3.5 comparatively fast. I did not see anything what is against that lens.

Enjoy and have fun.

Yep, I agree with this, an excellent lens for the money, I've owned both the 8-16mm and now own the 10-20mm and they're both excellent, just different fov, but you can add filters to the 10-20mm, it's no so easy with the 8-16mm.

 absquatulate's gear list:absquatulate's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Nikon Coolpix P7800 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-R1 Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 Sigma sd Quattro +4 more
Ceistinne Senior Member • Posts: 2,361
Re: How is the Sigma 10-20mm?

dan_darkroom wrote:

I just see cheap Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 DC HSM on the market. Is it worthwhile to get it?

Only lens I have now is the 17-70mm, would love to get the 8-16mm though, maybe the 10-20mm is a good compromise?

Any comments?

dan_darkroom,

Yes that lens is excellent as was the older 10-20mm also.  I have both of them. the f3.5 one works very well on the SDs and also on the sd Quattro.

S

 Ceistinne's gear list:Ceistinne's gear list
Sigma SD1 Merrill Sigma dp2 Quattro Sigma SD15 Sigma SD14 Sigma SD10 +5 more
OP dan_darkroom Regular Member • Posts: 406
Thanks!
1

Thanks for the feedback, I will see if I can get it for $100.

 dan_darkroom's gear list:dan_darkroom's gear list
Nikon Coolpix P900 Sony a7R II Sigma sd Quattro Venus Laowa 60mm F2.8 Macro Venus Laowa 15mm F4 Macro +2 more
dlj Regular Member • Posts: 303
Re: How is the Sigma 10-20mm?

Had for about 10 years. Good lens. Bright enough to be practical, light, can even find filters, not bad for flare, pretty good for focus. At 10mm is a bit soft at the edges, but it's alright. Any distortion is mild and consistent (very easily correctable - no weird waviness), and any occasional high-contrast CA towards the edges is also generally easily correctable. Durable too. Very good value. The depth of field is so great at this focal length that you can easily have near to far in focus. It's crop-factor only, however, and I can't recall what crop factor is supported for these (DC not DG) kinds of lenses on the coming full frame Sigma: it'd be cool if it was even less than the SD1M.

As a reminder, you'll need to remove the lens hoods for any on-camera flash usage.

Scottelly
Scottelly Forum Pro • Posts: 15,047
Re: How is the Sigma 10-20mm?

For a super-portable, two-lens kit, I'd say it's a good choice Dan - especially if you plan to use ND filters or some other filters, like polarizers, because while the 8-16 goes wider (I have the 8-16, which I use on my SD Quattro H, but only from 9mm to 16mm), it's a beast, and it just can't take any normal filters. Instead you have to get a big, heavy, expensive rig to mount the huge, expensive filters over the 8-16. I think the 10-20mm would be a good addition to a kit that includes a 24-70 or 24-105 too, since it covers 20mm and wider (at least to a pretty wide-angle view). In fact, I've been contemplating getting one, since I can't shoot at 8mm with my SD Quattro H anyway. I don't know if the 10-20mm covers the H sensor at 10mm though, like the 8-16 does. Still, even if it's only good for me from 12-20mm, that's not bad, considering the lens is much more compact than the 12-24mm lenses and takes smalll, light, affordable filters.

-- hide signature --

Scott Barton Kennelly
https://www.bigprintphotos.com/

 Scottelly's gear list:Scottelly's gear list
Sony SLT-A65 Sigma SD1 Merrill Sigma sd Quattro H Nikon D810 Sony DT 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 SAM +23 more
Antone
Antone Senior Member • Posts: 1,242
Re: How is the Sigma 10-20mm?
1

dan_darkroom wrote:

I just see cheap Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 DC HSM on the market. Is it worthwhile to get it?

Only lens I have now is the 17-70mm, would love to get the 8-16mm though, maybe the 10-20mm is a good compromise?

Any comments?

I have the f/4-5.6 version and it's supposed to be a bit better optically than the f/3.5. I can tell you it's a decent lens but at 10 mm you will see quite a bit of distortion on the edges.

-- hide signature --

Tony-S

 Antone's gear list:Antone's gear list
Sigma DP1 Merrill Sigma DP3 Merrill Sigma SD15 Sigma sd Quattro Sony a7 +9 more
absquatulate Forum Pro • Posts: 11,129
Re: How is the Sigma 10-20mm?

Antone wrote:

dan_darkroom wrote:

I just see cheap Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 DC HSM on the market. Is it worthwhile to get it?

Only lens I have now is the 17-70mm, would love to get the 8-16mm though, maybe the 10-20mm is a good compromise?

Any comments?

I have the f/4-5.6 version and it's supposed to be a bit better optically than the f/3.5. I can tell you it's a decent lens but at 10 mm you will see quite a bit of distortion on the edges.

It's not better, no lens manufacturer makes a later iteration of a lens worse than its predecessor. They have slightly different strengths, imaging resource's comments on the newer lens compared to the older are as follows:

The original Sigma ultrawide-angle zoom still holds its own, being slightly sharper at the telephoto end of its spectrum than the newer version. CA is also slightly better in the older version, though the newer version improves on corner shading and distortion. The new version uses 82mm filters instead of 77mm, but offers the constant ƒ/3.5 aperture.

https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/sigma/10-20mm-f3.5-ex-dc-hsm/review/

All UWA lenses have some weaknesses on the corners and edges, but the newer version is better than the older version in this respect. That being said, I don't think anyone should be disappointed with either one.

 absquatulate's gear list:absquatulate's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Nikon Coolpix P7800 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-R1 Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 Sigma sd Quattro +4 more
mike earussi Veteran Member • Posts: 8,752
Re: How is the Sigma 10-20mm?
1

I'm glad others have had such good results with their copies. My copy pretty much sucked at infinity shot horizontally with none of the edges ever becoming sharp at any focal length or aperture, though part of that I think was due to extreme field curvature and not necessarily a lack of sharpness because indoors the edges were decent. Conversely, shot vertically (for landscapes) the edge field curvature actually helps make the foreground sharper.

The color though is beautiful and the fixed aperture and ability to accept filters is useful. But you should consider it an indoors lens that's not good for infinity shots (until you've tested it and found otherwise).

I now own the 8-16 and the corners are much sharper and so better for landscapes, but it has to be stopped down to at least f8.

mdavidp Senior Member • Posts: 2,310
Re: How is the Sigma 10-20mm?
1

Hi,

I've owned and tested a few of the 3.5 variety.

No where as sharp as the 4.0 earlier version.

I just bought and returned yet another.

I do landscapes so I need fairly sharp edges.

Mike P

 mdavidp's gear list:mdavidp's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm GFX 50R
Antone
Antone Senior Member • Posts: 1,242
Re: How is the Sigma 10-20mm?

Here's a shot at 10mm and f/8 with the f/4-5.6 version. You'll see the edges are not that good. You're unlikely to see meaningful improvement, and perhaps worse, performance from the f/3.5 version.

Notchtop Mountain, Rocky Mountain National Park

-- hide signature --

Tony-S

 Antone's gear list:Antone's gear list
Sigma DP1 Merrill Sigma DP3 Merrill Sigma SD15 Sigma sd Quattro Sony a7 +9 more
absquatulate Forum Pro • Posts: 11,129
Re: How is the Sigma 10-20mm?

Antone wrote:

Here's a shot at 10mm and f/8 with the f/4-5.6 version. You'll see the edges are not that good. You're unlikely to see meaningful improvement, and perhaps worse, performance from the f/3.5 version.

Notchtop Mountain, Rocky Mountain National Park

Anyone expecting perfect edges on any UWA lens is going to be disappointed, they're convex lenses with bulbous front elements, they're virtually impossibly to perfectly correct. The sensible thing to do, especially on a high resolution camera, is to shoot wider than you need and crop the edges wherever possible. This pretty much applies to all wider angle zooms in my experience. Ultimately the viewing distance dictates how important this is, and to be honest, no non photographer will ever notice what people on here agonise over. The 10-20mm, both versions, are excellent value for money and will do a sterling job. A quick check on Flickr, searching for this lens, will demonstrate that.

 absquatulate's gear list:absquatulate's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Nikon Coolpix P7800 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-R1 Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 Sigma sd Quattro +4 more
Antone
Antone Senior Member • Posts: 1,242
Re: How is the Sigma 10-20mm?
2

absquatulate wrote:

Antone wrote:

Here's a shot at 10mm and f/8 with the f/4-5.6 version. You'll see the edges are not that good. You're unlikely to see meaningful improvement, and perhaps worse, performance from the f/3.5 version.

Anyone expecting perfect edges on any UWA lens is going to be disappointed, they're convex lenses with bulbous front elements, they're virtually impossibly to perfectly correct. The sensible thing to do, especially on a high resolution camera, is to shoot wider than you need and crop the edges wherever possible. This pretty much applies to all wider angle zooms in my experience. Ultimately the viewing distance dictates how important this is, and to be honest, no non photographer will ever notice what people on here agonise over. The 10-20mm, both versions, are excellent value for money and will do a sterling job. A quick check on Flickr, searching for this lens, will demonstrate that.

There's been nothing but talk in this thread so I posted an image so that Dan can see for himself how mediocre the 10-20mm lens is on the edges. If you have an image that shows the f/3.5 version is better, then post it.

-- hide signature --

Tony-S

 Antone's gear list:Antone's gear list
Sigma DP1 Merrill Sigma DP3 Merrill Sigma SD15 Sigma sd Quattro Sony a7 +9 more
mike earussi Veteran Member • Posts: 8,752
Re: How is the Sigma 10-20mm?

Antone wrote:

absquatulate wrote:

Antone wrote:

Here's a shot at 10mm and f/8 with the f/4-5.6 version. You'll see the edges are not that good. You're unlikely to see meaningful improvement, and perhaps worse, performance from the f/3.5 version.

Anyone expecting perfect edges on any UWA lens is going to be disappointed, they're convex lenses with bulbous front elements, they're virtually impossibly to perfectly correct. The sensible thing to do, especially on a high resolution camera, is to shoot wider than you need and crop the edges wherever possible. This pretty much applies to all wider angle zooms in my experience. Ultimately the viewing distance dictates how important this is, and to be honest, no non photographer will ever notice what people on here agonise over. The 10-20mm, both versions, are excellent value for money and will do a sterling job. A quick check on Flickr, searching for this lens, will demonstrate that.

There's been nothing but talk in this thread so I posted an image so that Dan can see for himself how mediocre the 10-20mm lens is on the edges. If you have an image that shows the f/3.5 version is better, then post it.

If you take advantage of the field curvature it's not too bad. This is a pano taken with the lens in vertical position:

https://pbase.com/mikeearussi/image/148840450

PRISCILLA TURNER
PRISCILLA TURNER Senior Member • Posts: 1,630
Re: How is the Sigma 10-20mm?

For my purposes, the fact that one can filter either version is great gain. If they were faster that feature would almost certainly be a casualty.

-- hide signature --

'To see, not with, but through the eye.' [William Blake]
'The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.' [Edmund Burke]
'Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely.' [Lord Acton]
http://www.flickr.com/photos/22905474@N06/
http://priscillaturner.imagekind.com/store/

 PRISCILLA TURNER's gear list:PRISCILLA TURNER's gear list
Sigma DP1 Pentax K-3 II HD Pentax DA 55-300mm F4.0-5.8 ED WR Pentax smc DA* 16-50mm F2.8 ED AL (IF) SDM Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro +7 more
absquatulate Forum Pro • Posts: 11,129
Re: How is the Sigma 10-20mm?

Antone wrote:

absquatulate wrote:

Antone wrote:

Here's a shot at 10mm and f/8 with the f/4-5.6 version. You'll see the edges are not that good. You're unlikely to see meaningful improvement, and perhaps worse, performance from the f/3.5 version.

Anyone expecting perfect edges on any UWA lens is going to be disappointed, they're convex lenses with bulbous front elements, they're virtually impossibly to perfectly correct. The sensible thing to do, especially on a high resolution camera, is to shoot wider than you need and crop the edges wherever possible. This pretty much applies to all wider angle zooms in my experience. Ultimately the viewing distance dictates how important this is, and to be honest, no non photographer will ever notice what people on here agonise over. The 10-20mm, both versions, are excellent value for money and will do a sterling job. A quick check on Flickr, searching for this lens, will demonstrate that.

There's been nothing but talk in this thread so I posted an image so that Dan can see for himself how mediocre the 10-20mm lens is on the edges. If you have an image that shows the f/3.5 version is better, then post it.

Well better than posting a single image that proves nothing except you don't know how to get the best out of a lens like this, or that you may have a sub-par version, lets look at a stream of images taken by this exact lens to see how people can take great images from this "sub-par" lens. That way the OP can judge for himself based on a huge selection of images at all focal lengths and apertures and in all kinds of lighting.

https://flickriver.com/search/sigma+10-20mm+F3.5/

 absquatulate's gear list:absquatulate's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Nikon Coolpix P7800 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-R1 Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 Sigma sd Quattro +4 more
OP dan_darkroom Regular Member • Posts: 406
Update on: Sigma 10-20mm?

Unfortunately, maybe, that deal didn't worked out. I don't mind too much. I am probably in state of GAS* and should look for professional (not photographic related) help. I will keep the buying urge low till a 8-16mm shows up.

*GAS = Gear Acquisition Syndrome

 dan_darkroom's gear list:dan_darkroom's gear list
Nikon Coolpix P900 Sony a7R II Sigma sd Quattro Venus Laowa 60mm F2.8 Macro Venus Laowa 15mm F4 Macro +2 more
Antone
Antone Senior Member • Posts: 1,242
Re: How is the Sigma 10-20mm?
1

absquatulate wrote:

Antone wrote:

There's been nothing but talk in this thread so I posted an image so that Dan can see for himself how mediocre the 10-20mm lens is on the edges. If you have an image that shows the f/3.5 version is better, then post it.

Well better than posting a single image that proves nothing except you don't know how to get the best out of a lens like this, or that you may have a sub-par version, lets look at a stream of images taken by this exact lens to see how people can take great images from this "sub-par" lens. That way the OP can judge for himself based on a huge selection of images at all focal lengths and apertures and in all kinds of lighting.

https://flickriver.com/search/sigma+10-20mm+F3.5/

Thanks for proving my point. I just downloaded the very first image from that link and it's just a bad along the edges and the corners are even worse. And that was at 20mm where it should perform better. The fourth one down the list was at 10mm and it's terrible in the corners, too. Lots of distortion and CA. Did you even bother to examine them?

-- hide signature --

Tony-S

 Antone's gear list:Antone's gear list
Sigma DP1 Merrill Sigma DP3 Merrill Sigma SD15 Sigma sd Quattro Sony a7 +9 more
Antone
Antone Senior Member • Posts: 1,242
Re: Update on: Sigma 10-20mm?

dan_darkroom wrote:

Unfortunately, maybe, that deal didn't worked out. I don't mind too much. I am probably in state of GAS* and should look for professional (not photographic related) help. I will keep the buying urge low till a 8-16mm shows up.

*GAS = Gear Acquisition Syndrome

I bought the 8-16mm several years ago but returned it. It was a much better lens; however, I decided that the ability to use neutral density filters was essential, thus its return.

-- hide signature --

Tony-S

 Antone's gear list:Antone's gear list
Sigma DP1 Merrill Sigma DP3 Merrill Sigma SD15 Sigma sd Quattro Sony a7 +9 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads